|
Madunagu and Our Imprisoned Future: A Rejoinder to Nigeria and the American Prediction By Kennedy Emetulu
Dr Edwin Madunagu’s Nigeria and the American prediction, published in The Guardian of Thursday, June 23, 2005 has left me with mixed feelings. While I remain a great fan of this brilliant academic, prolific political commentator and iconic activist, I couldn’t help but note that this piece is essentially marred by his ideological prejudices and anti-American bias, including his attempt to dish out some quasi-theoretical nay simplistic proposals to move Nigeria forward.
He began rather soberly by correctly noting the hypocrisy of some of those protesting the so-called American report on a futuristic Nigerian collapse, advocating instead a retreat to honest “soul-searching”, if only to avoid making the so-called prediction “a self fulfilling prophesy”. But just when you think we’re in for some balanced analysis, the man insists on first making two propositions, which he presumptuously touted as “simple and potentially non-controversial, but nonetheless irreducible”.
Here is how he expressed the first:
My first proposition is that American rulers, their institutions and their agencies - including those that call themselves, or are called "democratic" - do not love Nigeria as a nation or Nigerians as a people. They love only our oil resources, and other natural and human resources that are required for their use. Indeed, in their calculation, our oil and other resources that are still untapped are part of their strategic reserves. The Middle East oil is on the same side of this strategic equation. Hence, we can go to hell, provided the oil is left behind. Nigeria may remain a single (not necessarily united) country, provided the cost of extracting oil therefrom does not rise above what is considered economically rational. On the other hand, Nigeria may break up provided the oil-flow to America continues unimpeded, that is, provided the section or sections that eventually control the oil fields are secure and are prepared to allow the oil's unimpeded flow at reasonable prices to where the "black gold" is really needed and appreciated and where nature ought to have located it in the first place, that is, America. Left to the rulers of America, the present crop of Nigerians may vanish - in the literal sense of the word - provided the territory known as Nigeria remains together with its known natural resources. New inhabitants from the southern Hemisphere or the newly "independent" countries of Eastern Europe can always found to take over the territory under the "protection" of American marines. Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has shown the way. The best scenario, however, is the disappearance of a substa ntial fraction of Nigeria's population (say 60 per cent) by any means whatsoever - civil war, ethnic cleansing, natural disaster, disease, etc. The survivors, whose number will probably correspond to what is regarded as a reasonable population for Nigeria will then be re-organised and educated to play their proper role in the contemporary division of labour as prescribed by globalisation. Anyone who thinks that I am exaggerating or joking here should refer to the history of America's foreign relations since the end of the 19th century, and particularly since the second half of t he 20th century.
Now, apart from the fact that this proposition is not as described, it is indeed a bizarre and sensationally theatrical attempt by Madunagu to paint a Reaganesque Evil Empire of America – a subliminally ideologically-driven retaliative depiction that has no basis in reality. For instance, all the talk about American rulers dreaming of a Nigeria bereft of its inhabitants, but intact with its natural resources or of new inhabitants from the southern hemisphere or newly “independent” countries of Eastern Europe parachuted in to take over the place under the “protection” of American marines has no historical precedence. In fact, his “best scenario” of wiping out 60 percent of the Nigerian population so as to supposedly trim them perfectly for some globalization prescription is equally as outlandish.
It is worth pointing out
at this stage that Madunagu’s proposition isn’t new. It is a genre of the
“Grand Area planning” conspiracy theory inspired by the communist
opposition to growing American power. Put simply, this theory posits that
America will use all within its power to pursue US interests anywhere in
the globe and at the same time stop or sabotage any positive
socio-political and economic development elsewhere, except such is
ultimately in the interest of the United States ruling class. To this end,
the US will deploy political, diplomatic and military power to achieve its
purpose. In other words, the ultimate vision of the Grand Area planning is
a glittering, prosperous
But what people like Madunagu ignore is the fact that these “American rulers, their institutions and their agencies” are actually comprised of human beings - flesh and blood - who have feelings and who invariably express these in their work privately or publicly. Add to that a vibrant society based largely on the principle of open government, electoral supremacy and rugged individualism, what you get is not a robotized system delivering the whole gamut of evil and unbridled selfishness cooked up in the Grand Area conspiracy theory, but a dynamic, responsive and progressive system that would make mistakes, but invariably pick up and reinvent itself to stay ahead and to keep with the times. The positive changes that have come over America and the world in the past hundred years didn’t happen by accident. People made them happen. If anything, September 11 has proved to America and its rulers that America is not safe if the world around her isn’t. It is therefore in America’s interest for development and good governance to spread, no matter the spin any administration or any party puts on it.
However, on policy level, when people go around claiming one country does not love the other, they are simply living in an illusory world of flower-age internationalism, because countries by their very nature and composition do not express behaviour through policy as humans do through actions. For instance, how do you begin to conceive of countries loving one another? Isn’t it a bit naïve to talk of bilateral or multilateral relations on such a romantic level? Fact is countries are incapable of such feelings as love or hate, because they can only “think” and react neo-mechanistically in pursuit of established and nurtured interests. No doubt, there are elements of morality involved, but such rules or customs are only applicable in reciprocity and largely subject to the realpolitik of each situation.
Dr Madunagu in his thesis of America’s loveless disposition towards Nigeria insists that we “refer to the history of America's foreign relations since the end of the 19th century, and particularly since the second half of the 20th century” for proof that what he’s said about the Americans is no joke; but I wonder what is there in America’s foreign relations of the said period to support his view. Apart from the fact that he isn’t specific as to exactly what episodes in the said period(s) he wants us to consider, history tells us that every powerful empire or country did/do have that aspect of their relations with others that they’d rather prefer not to talk about, because of the shame and stigma that they represent; so, why should we expect America to be the exception?
Nonetheless, taking a stab in the dark, I would say the most important preoccupation of America’s foreign policy at the end of the 19th century was the war with Spain over the latter’s colonial policies in Cuba and the Philippines and America’s obvious desire to have greater influence in these areas because of their strategic importance to the US. The war itself was not something President William McKinley just jumped into; in fact, it took the pressure of public opinion, the agitation of the press (especially Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph’s Heart’s New York Journal) and the backing of Congress to finally get into it. But whatever the merits or demerits of America’s “liberation” of these territories, what is not in doubt is that her presence and influence in the region was far less objectionable than the historically cruel Spanish colonization preceding it.
Again, if we consider “the second half of the 20th century”, the theme of America’s foreign policy post-World War II had been her preoccupation (along with the rest of her allies in Western Europe) with the Cold War. Neither the Soviet Union nor America came out of that episode smelling of roses because at the heart of the war, in every sphere it is expressed, is the unbridled obsession with the same age-old desire – world domination. Each couched their case as alluringly as possible, but their acts, especially in the developing countries s aw them propping up bad governments, ruining economies and destroying lives. The war in Vietnam, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia, the support for Somoza in Nicaragua, the death squads of El Salvador, the counterinsurgency campaigns in Guatemala, the opposition to Bangladeshi independence, the undermining of Nkrumah, the killing of Patrice Lumumba, the support for apartheid South Africa and so on and so forth are not exactly episodes in American foreign policy history that they can be proud of; but their adversaries in the Cold War weren’t shrinking violets either. The Soviet invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan and the building of the Berlin Wall or the support for Mengistu Haile Mariam and Said Barre are no less influenced by the same destructive desires in the name of ideology.
So, what am I saying here? It is simply that America’s foreign policy has been no different in philosophy and projection from the foreign policy of the world powers before her or other world powers of her time. For instance, by “the end of the 19th century” which Madunagu referred to, the whole of Europe were sitting in Berlin carving up Africa, terrorizing her people and stealing her natural resources for their home industries. Whatever America had done in that time can’t possibly be worse! As for the second part of the 20th century, no matter the accusation we can rightly lay at America’s doorstep with regard to her role in the Cold War, fact is the fall of “communism” or whatever it was they were practicing in Eastern Europe in the name of the workers of the world was good riddance to bad rubbish. Any ideology that first steals your essential freedoms before promising delivery of the good life is obscenely tyrannical and inhuman and should be fought until it is defeated.
Frankly, people of our generation must be grateful for the death of communism Soviet-style, even though we recognize the limits of altruism in American foreign policy and the danger of a world dominated by one superpower. However, it is one thing to attack America for the atrocities its troops and policies have committed and caused and are still committing and causing around the world and quite another to begrudge her the prerogative to project her global power for the benefit and protection of her domestic population first and foremost. Taking care of number one has always been the rule in international relations, but in an increasingly interdependent world, that doesn’t mean at all cost, neither does it exclude the responsibility countries have towards each other under customary international law. Madunagu’s picture of America’s powers and desires towards Nigeria is medieval, and has no bearing to the present or a reasonably predictable reality of our 21st century world. On that very basis, I reject his first proposition unstintingly.
Thankfully, Madunagu’s second proposition is more down to earth. Again, this is how he expressed it:
My second proposition is directed at Nigeria and Nigerians; and it relates to the prospects of defending the "national unity and territorial integrity" of the country if and when the battle-cry is made. My proposition here is that, even if we disregard the superstition that no country survives two civil wars, any future civil war or generalised break-down of "law and order" cannot be prosecuted or resolved the way the last civil war was prosecuted and resolved. In particula r, there will be no single "villain", no single "rebel leader", no single or contiguous "rebel territory", and hence no credible or unified central authority to summon Nigerians to defend their country's "unity and territorial integrity". Genuinely patriotic, nationalist, democratic and humanist voices - many with credible antecedents - will rise, but they will be hopelessly marginalised. There are simply too many spheres of discontent and disaffection in contemporary Nigeria. These spheres are active and can easily go into fighting alliances for objectives which may not be well defined, or not defined at all, at the beginning.
Incidentally, the above view is also shared by the writers of the controversial American document being interpreted wrongly as a prediction of Nigeria’s collapse in their “Downside Risks” assessment. Under such a scenario as “the outright collapse of Nigeria”, it talked about the possibility of open warfare breaking out in many places in a sustained manner to the extent that “a failed Nigeria probably could not be reconstituted for many years—if ever—and not without massive international assistance”. In any case, Madunagu and the National Intelligence Council people aren’t saying anything new here. A multi-ethnic and multi-religious country without a strong history of national cohesion, uncompromised national institutions and an overarching and effective conflict resolution mechanism (whether at the grassroots or national level) is bound to splinter into a thousand pieces “if and when the battle cry is made”, considering also the vile socio-economic conditions under which the majority live. Besides, the question of such national conflagration capable of being ignited from any one flashpoint and over any issue is real; but I doubt whether all these are sustainable by the two propositions Dr Madunagu has put forward, at least in the light of the objections I’ve raised against the first.
Dr Madunagu’s prognosis also dealt with the work of the National Political Reform Conference. Accusing the political class of “political bankruptcy”, he wondered why they aren’t considering the concept of collective presidency “whereby all the zones (or rather, all the leaders of the zones) and, by extension and logic, all the states, will exercise power together at each given point in time, and hopefully, forever”. Now, I find this very curious. Dr Madunagu who was ousted from the 1986 Babangida Political Bureau for his “extremist views” and “uncooperative attitude” or who (as some other accounts have it) walked out because he didn’t want to be used is now the one calling on the Obasanjo posse of non-representative “delegates” to come up with “collective presidency” as the panacea for our troubles as a nation?
My problem with this view is not only in the fact that such idea lacks legitimacy ab initio, having originated from a Conference appointed under the whims and caprices of a president notorious for his impunity and lawlessness; but also for the fact that its structural origin is proposed by Dr Madunagu to be in the merger of the idea of the hare-brained rotational presidency and the soulless creations called states as federating units. It’s like adding cream to raw faeces and calling it ice cream! As a veteran of the struggle, Madunagu ought to know that getting all the heads of the sectional thieves together into one ruling council wouldn’t solve the Nigerian problem, because that problem is systemic and not in form.
The problem with Nigeria is not about the thieves fighting for the spoils amongst themselves, because as chaotic as things are, the thieves have been the only cohesive group in Nigeria since the grant of flag independence and that is why they’ve been very successful! Be they in khaki or agbada, they have managed to put their ethnic differences/origin aside to distribute the spoils lavishly amongst themselves without any stress. Those who’ve ruined Nigeria come from everywhere around the country, not from one ethnic group, big or small. The problem with Nigeria is that this small clique of ‘national’ thieves has hijacked the patrimony of us all. Creating a collective presidency based on the structure Madunagu proposed or accepts will only legitimize the thievery.
Today, there are no more than three small countries practicing this collective presidency idea – Switzerland, San Marino and Bosnia-Herzegovina. To start with, we cannot learn much from the Bosnia-Herzegovina three-man collective presidency, being that it’s a new idea put together by the 1995 Dayton Accords following the Balkan wars. Even though it’s inserted in Article V of the country’s Constitution, it’s still a transitional idea based on the notion of keeping the Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats (the warring ethnic groups that make up the small coun try) from each other’s throats. So, to that end, a straightforward idea of having the Chairmanship of the Presidency rotated amongst the three after every 8 months seems perfect, at least for now.
But Switzerland and San Marino provide better lessons, yet only lessons in contrasts, because the factors that make it successful in those places are obviously not in ours. Take size, location and population for example. Both are very small countries. While I’m not so sure what the physical area/size has got to do with this, it is worth mentioning that Switzerland is only 41, 285 square kilometres while San Marino is only 61 square kilometres! Both are landlocked countries, the latter totally surrounded by Italy. Switzerland population is 7, 399, 100, while San Marino is a mere 27, 336 – the world’s smallest republic in size and one of the smallest population-wise as well. While everyone in San Marino speaks Italian and is ethnically Italian (apart from a few foreigners) Switzerland’s ethnic composition is 64% German, 19% French, 8% Italian, 3% Yugoslav, 2% Spanish and 1% Romansch.
Now, in terms of the collective presidency itself, both have long history of the practice – Switzerland began the practice of a seven-man Federal Council in 1848, with one chosen as President for a year rotationally, but each (including the President) heads a government department or ministry. The person elected for a year is only a primus inter pares, with no obvious powers above the rest. San Marino has been practicing their two-man collective presidency for over 400 years. The elected parliament simply selects two of their members as Captain Regents (collective presidents) for six months periods.
So, looking at these facts, it’s quite obvious that there’s already a conceptual problem with Madunagu’s proposal. If the federating units are to be states as he proposes, it follows that we’ll be having a 36-member collective presidency based on the number of states at present. We cannot begin to talk about zones since in his proposal zones are not the federating units. Besides, basing the presidency on a zonal arrangement would simply replicate the present national marginalization problem at zonal levels as there would be nothing stopping large/majority ethnic groups on those levels exploiting ethnic politics to get their persons elected and re-elected to the collective presidency time and time again. The fact is a 36-member collective presidency is a no-no and a zonal arrangement will need more than a little undemocratic tinkering to arrive at any “acceptable” or “workable” formula.
What all this means in the long run is that we are more concerned with stability than development or accountable government. Any arrangement of this sort is bound to survive or fall only by elitist compromises and not by the ballot box, which is bound to leave us with worse privative feelings about governance than we already have. Selection will be the key means of choosing representation and the ordinary person whom Madunagu continually roots for in his piece will be far more removed from the political process than he/she is now. How for instance will anyone be discussing unemployment or mass impoverishment under such a collective presidency? Where would responsibility lie for policy failure at any time? What kind of power would the presidency have under the new federal structure and how long do we expect each person to head the group before the next takes over, etc? The truth is a collective pr esidency of the sort proposed by Madunagu is a further diminution of the democratic principle and the idea of accountable government. Where the electorate has no one single person to hold responsible for government action at the very top, impunity reigns supreme and change becomes a mirage.
Anyway, I hope the collective presidency idea Dr Madunagu has in mind is not the one perfected by the Soviets in the post-Stalinist era. To have the ghosts of Khrushchev, Kosygin and Brezhnev stalking poor Nigeria may just be one abracadabra too many!
Kennedy Emetulu London
|